Without sounding to dramatic, I thought it might be interesting to get everyone's take on the increased tension between Iran and the U.S.

Some interesting developments:

U.S. Seizes Iranian Operatives in Iraq.

Iranian Agents kidnapped U.S. Soldiers & Execute them.

John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group deployed to Persian Gulf.

Joins the already deployed Eisenhower Carrie Strike Group.

USS Bataan steamed through the Suez Canal to the Persian Gulf.

First Admiral appointed as head of Centcom.

New leadership in mid-east Military.

Iran continues with Nuclear aspirations.

Iranian Embassy official kidnapped in Baghadad.

Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran.

New patriot missle defensive systems deployed to U.S. Mid-East Allies.

Clinton states Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power.

I think it is interesting that Bush has named an Admiral to head Centcom. A Naval leader has never been named to Centcom. Plus why do we need 2 Carrier Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf. The Stennis by itself represents unbelievable strike power.

A power struggle is unfolding between the U.S. and Mid-East Allies against growing Iranian influence and the stakes appear to be even higher than Iraq.

If Clinton, representative of the democrats is even stating that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power and we all know how Bush feels about this - it would seem that all signs are pointing to a show down.

Dear Lord, lest I continue in my complacent ways, help me to remember that someone died for me today. And if there be war, help me to remember to ask and to answer "am I worth dying for?" - Eleanor Roosevelt

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

I would have to say no on this one. Or at least not yet, not with Bush in office and to many people already sick of war news. In my opinon there is just too little public backing behind it at this point so there would have to be a huge reason for it. Something even larger than 9-11. I would say that it would probably be the beginning of the next presidency or at the earliest when this season of American Idol ends.

--------------------

Unavoidably Detained by the World

"Irishness is not primary a question of birth or blood or language; it is the condition on being involved in the Irish situation, and usually of being mauled by it."-Conor Cruise O'Brien

I would have to say no on this one. Or at least not yet, not with Bush in office and to many people already sick of war news. In my opinon there is just too little public backing behind it at this point so there would have to be a huge reason for it.

Bush just doesn't care what public opinion, or the opinion of other politicians is. He just keeps setting up continued profitablitly for Big Oil. Don't forget the Bush family money is still there. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

--------------------

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." Carl Sagan

Lets see....we're fighting on two fronts currently, with much controversy around sending another 25,000 to Iraq and a Democratic majority in Congress, I don't think another war effort will be taken lightly - no green light on this one. Bush is more likely to foster the "diplomatic solution" until he can hand off to the next president, unless there's some serious development like Iran develops a verifiable nuke with a delivery system which can reach Israel. Unless that happens, then I think we may be in for more than our earful of rhetorical barking but no bite on all sides. Business as usual in Dystopia.

The carrier group may be either a relief to an existing one, or to pressure Iran with increased military presence with a hope to diminish their obstinacy by fear. Or maybe its to have more planes in place for select strikes against sites that are processing nuclear materials without an actual invasion or war declaration - that option would damage relations with our European allies which we're trying to mend, and also strengthen the Dems presidential bid by inciting more anti-war rallying and ranting. Maybe they'll try to pass a slap-your-wrist resolution, but then even with a majority they can't even gain enough strength to resolve to whine at this point. Whatever the carrier group motive, the rubber band of relations seems to be stretched a bit more taut....hey, is that a taut-ology then?

As far as Iranian influence in the region, we'd be better off trying to convince Iran that a stable Iraq is more in their interest than Iraq in the midst of civil war. Then again, maybe Iran thinks an Iraq in conflict gives them a greater chance to influence the outcome in their favor.

Iraq like Northern Ireland has one similarity with a bad marriage, they just can't get along with the opposite sects.

I do not think an invasion of Iran is what they have planned. That would be pure stupidity and would certainly result in the president being impeached for sure. Also, we are not even capable of that right now - it would require a military buildup of immense proportions.

I'm thinking along the lines of a sustained air campaign - possibly taking out all of the nuclear R&D sites and setting the Iranian Regime 50 years back.

I do not think an invasion of Iran is what they have planned. That would be pure stupidity and would certainly result in the president being impeached for sure. Also, we are not even capable of that right now - it would require a military buildup of immense proportions.

I'm thinking along the lines of a sustained air campaign - possibly taking out all of the nuclear R&D sites and setting the Iranian Regime 50 years back.

And your point is? It was pure stupidity to go into Iraq too.

We will be at war with Iran before the years end.

--------------------

I support the separation of church and hate!

IMAGINATION - the freest and largest nation in the world!

One can not profess to be of "GOD" and show intolerence and prejudice towards the beliefs of others.

Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

"We're all in this together , in the parking lot between faith and fear" ... O.C.M.S.

“Beasts feed; man eats; only the man of intellect knows how to eat well.”

"Without food we are nothing, without history we are lost." - SHADOWS

Is iomadh duine laghach a mhill an Creideamh.Religion has spoiled many a good man.

Pure stupidity? Shrub is a little boy playing with his toy soldier set. His poor, coke burned brain isn't capable of realizing that these are real American children he is getting killed. He doesn't listen to anybody, not his advisors, not the American people. He will go on killing our children until he is stopped. Don't imeach, indict! Wait! That is a different thread! sorry. I was reading an arictle about the results of investigations into the pre-war intelligence over the weekend. The Pentagon clearly manipulated the intelligence, using and releasing only those parts that supported Bush's pet plan to invade. The report went on to say that this manipulation was not "illigal" or "unauthorized". I.e. GW authorized it. We are back to Bush lying to get his war.

The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.

The information includes interrogation reports from the raids indicating that money and weapons components are being brought into Iraq from across the Iranian border in vehicles that travel at night. One of the detainees has identified an Iranian operative as having supplied two of the bombs. The border crossing at Mehran is identified as a major crossing point for the smuggling of money and weapons for Shiite militants, according to the intelligence.

According to American intelligence, Iran has excelled in developing this type of bomb, and has provided similar technology to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon. The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq. In addition, some components of the bombs have been found with Iranian factory markings from 2006.

Iran sits atop an amount of oil roughly equivalent to that of Iraq, and threatens US hegemony over Iraq and it's oil resources. The US is going to attack Iran, and there's absolutely nothing you or I can do about it.

Iran is quite well aware of this, which is why they're working so hard on developing nuclear weapons (thanks to our good friends and gallant allies the Pakistanis, who sold nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and God knows who else). The US must attack Iran very soon, before their nuclear deterrent capability becomes operational. To ensure the complete first-strike destruction of hardened underground nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak I won't be at all surprised if the first strike utilizes the B61 EPW, a thermonuclear "bunker buster" with a maximum yield of 340 kilotons, either by the US or, more likely, by their proxy Israel under diplomatic cover of US veto power in the Security Council, all in the name of "pre-emptive self-defense" and peace, freedom, the onward march of democracy, of course.

In a truly great understatement, this is a really tough call. Iran certainly is a threat to world stability (whatever THAT is). They have a guy at the helm that is a certified wacko just like North Korea. And because of the ineptitude of previous intelligence reports (which both Democratic and Republican administration bought into, I might add), it is difficult to give credibility to these reports.

Having said all that, I certainly have no answers. And it doesn't seem like any of the '08 candidates do, either. I know from my Middle Eastern friends that the tyranny in Iraq is something none of us has likely experienced or completely understand. As an aside, I have a close friend from a Middle Eastern country that shall remain nameless who was smuggling Bibles into Iran. He has a death warrant out on him. He spent hours hiding from Iranian authorities in a sewer and is now experiencing some pretty intense health issues because of it. Of course, attacking Iran for my friend's sake is not what I am advocating. We are just dealing with a totally different mind set.

Something militarily happening in Iran may be inevitable. If not the US, it certainly could be Israel. These are amazing times, indeed.

--------------------

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. -- John Quincy Adams

Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less - Robert E. Lee

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved - Romans 10:13 (KJV)

The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble, and he knoweth them that trust in him - Nahum 1:7 (KJV)

I would think a sustained air campaign would be a logical choice IF they attack Iran on any level.

However, they better make sure they have adequate proof that Iran IS seeking nuclear weapons. If, and I'm not saying they are one way or the other, but if Iran doesn't have any evidence of anything other than nuclear technology to power their country...well doing anything against them will set the US back in the global arena. It would be a huge PR nightmare.

If the government can prove that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, well I wouldn't be surprised if they use this as a way to get us out of Iraq and still continue the War on Terror. I don't know how this would work logistically, but a new enemy would look a lot better in the news than more Iraq failures.

--------------------

May those who love us love usAnd those who don't love usMay God turn their hearts,And if He doesn't turn their hearts,May He turn their ankles,So we'll know them by their limping.